Obama Should Stand Up to Russia's Regime

Berlin is an ideal place for an American president, even a would-be president, to speak to the world about freedom and shared values. Barack
Obama's recent visit evoked the famous speeches of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan that defended the U.S. stance against the Soviet Union and
tyranny in Eastern Europe. Both the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union are now gone, but dangerous, nuclear-armed dictatorships are not. Sadly, Mr.
Obama declined to mention this in Berlin.

The stage for his disappointing performance was set several weeks ago, when the Illinois senator rejected John McCain's proposal to eject Russia and
exclude China from the Group of Eight (G-8). Mr. Obama's response during a July 13 interview on CNN -- "We have to engage and get them involved" --
suggests that it is impossible to work with Russia and China on economic and nuclear nonproliferation issues while also standing up for democracy and
human rights.

It has repeatedly been shown that the exact opposite is true.

The U.S. does not cede leverage with authoritarian governments when it confronts them about their crimes. Instead, the U.S. increases its credibility
and influence with foes and friends alike. Placating regimes like those in Russia and China today only entrenches hostile, antidemocratic forces.

Commercial agreements, arms control and other mutually beneficial projects can be pursued without endorsing dictatorship. During the same interview,
Sen. Obama spoke of enlisting China to help write the "international rules of the road." This is the same logic that led the United Nations to place
China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia on its current Human Rights Council. Do we really want to live under rules created with the approval of such
regimes?

While Mr. Obama talked about the importance of receiving Russia's help in containing Iran's nuclear ambitions, Reuters reported that Tehran is
acquiring advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles from the Kremlin. This is the cooperation the West has earned by including Russia in the G-8.

In Berlin, Mr. Obama repeatedly mentioned the 1948 Berlin airlift. On CNN, he said he would like to "bring back the kind of foreign policy that
characterized the Truman administration with Marshall and Acheson and Kennan." A strange statement, since President Harry Truman fought against
giving up an inch to the communists on any front around the world. Not only did Truman save West Berlin; South Korea, Taiwan and Western Europe also
have much to thank him for. By contrast, in their July 9 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Obama advisers Madeleine Albright and William Perry,
secretaries of state and defense under Bill Clinton, criticized Sen. McCain's proposal to respond to major powers' human-rights abuses with more
than lip service.

Mr. Obama also asked if the West would stand up for "the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe."

It is an interesting piece and one I agree with. According to the author, if you were to apply Obama's foreign policy ideology on hostile nations to
a beligerant child, you would be placating the child at any cost and would end up with a spoiled brat. The paralell is striking. I also agree that the
U.S. can stand up for itself and the principals by which we live and still seek nuclear nonproliferation. So far, the world hasn't been nuked all to
hell yet, but now in comes a man who says he wants to change all of that, and he's spurred on by all of his far-left buddies in Congress. Combine
that with a religious madman who seeks to destroy Isreal and is backed by two major powers, Russia and China. Am I right to be afraid?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.